February 27, 2003 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

John MacArthur is a popular Bible teacher, but he does not practice biblical separation and he is not a friend of those who do.

This is one of the key definitions of a New Evangelical. Harold Ockenga, who claimed to have coined the term “neo evangelical” in 1948, defined New Evangelicalism first and foremost as “A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATION” (Ockenga, in the foreword to Harold Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible, 1976).

Wherever one finds a New Evangelical, one will find an attitude and philosophy that is opposed to separation. In theory, the New Evangelical might say that he believes in separation and he might talk about it and even preach about it in vague generalities; but in practice, he will not follow it, in his heart he does not support it, and he will speak out more against the separatists than against those who disobey separation.

The following overview by Pastor Frank Bumpus of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship gives some of the background pertaining to MacArthur’s compromise:

“In 1959, he [John MacArthur] abruptly left the student body of a Christian university known for its fundamental stance. Approximately one year later, his father resigned from the Cooperating Board of the same institution during the battle over ecumenical evangelism. Both rejected the separatist position and moved firmly into the new evangelical camp with its leading spokesman, Dr. Billy Graham. The fact is John MacArthur, Jr., and his father repudiated fundamentalism in the midst of the battle and went over to the enemy.

“You can tell a preacher's sympathies by the colleges he promotes. He has confirmed his position by the institutions, mission programs, and associations maintained through the years. Two of the schools he has encouraged his young people to attend are Wheaton College and BIOLA College, hardly fundamental institutions. He has allowed his church people to come under the influence of new evangelical Talbot Seminary by hosting their extension courses. His mission program has included such organizations as Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, the Navigators and the Orient Crusades. When questioned about the reason for recently dropping support for Campus Crusade, a staff member indicated that the issue was not separation from evil, but rather Campus Crusade's lack of a local church emphasis. He also stated that pastor and staff considered themselves evangelicals, not fundamentalists.

“MacArthur has now emerged as a very successful radio Bible teacher and pastors what is apparently a well-organized and large church. We are thankful for the truth he teaches, but regret the subtle influence he is having upon fundamentalism. It is not surprising that those who come under his influence often become critical of the separatist position. It is disheartening when young preachers return from MacArthurland singing a familiar refrain heard when new evangelicalism emerged back in the late 1950's. The words are a little different, of course, but the message is the same, ‘I am weary of fundamentalists and their legalism. There is not love. I am following MacArthur because he preaches the Bible and is not always talking about standards.’ Neither has the chorus changed much, ‘We have become too separated. Let us build loving bridges of communication.’

“A word of caution to those fundamentalists who are enamored with MacArthur. It is acceptable to skim the cream from a person's mind when there is something to learn; but we must be careful to keep our principles straight. Someone said, "It is acceptable to ride the devil as long as he is going in your direction." This may be true, but remember he is a slick old devil and can veer off on a side road and before you know it, take you in the wrong direction. New evangelicals are not straight on the doctrine of separation. They have a mind set away from separation toward accommodation and tend to veer further and further away from truth.

“Fundamentalists are not perfect. We have blind spots like everyone else and have to work at being balanced in our attitude and ministries; however, of one thing I am sure, fundamentalists are true to the Word of God. Whenever I become a little irritated with some of the shortcomings in our circle, I just think about the alternative” (Frank Bumpus, “Pilgrimage to MacArthurland,” F.B.F. News Bulletin, May-June 1985, pp. 1,8).

---

It is obvious from the previous bit of history that MacArthur made a choice long ago in the area of separation, and he consciously went the broad way of new evangelicalism rather than narrow road of fundamentalism.

The January-February 1987 issue of Voice magazine contained an article by MacArthur in which he stated, “We must all be united in love. That’s the unity of the Body Jesus wants.” This is the same tired old false ecumenical theme song that is sung by Graham, Van Impe, and a host of others today.

It is instructive that MacArthur would choose J.I. Packer to write the foreword to one of his books, because Packer is a dangerous ecumenist. Packer frequently joins hands with Roman Catholics in conferences. He was a signer of the dangerous Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. When his close friend Thomas Howard left his teaching position at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) and joined the Roman Catholic Church in 1985, Packer was asked for a comment by John Woodbridge, the historian at TEDS. Packer replied: “I don't think becoming a Catholic is anything like the tragedy of a person becoming a liberal and losing touch with objective authority altogether ... Catholics are among the most loyal and [spiritually] virile brothers evangelicals can find these days” (Christianity Today, May 17, 1985).

MacArthur himself frequently speaks at ecumenical forums, such as the Moody Bible Institute Founder’s Week. For example, at the February 1986 Moody Bible Institute conference, MacArthur joined hands with two of the chief ecumenists of our day, Billy Graham and Luis Palau. Both Graham and Palau regularly join together in ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics. Graham has turned thousands of his converts over to the hands of the wolves in sheep’s clothing in the various Catholic parishes that have participated in his crusades. (We have documented this extensively in our 371-page book Evangelicals and Rome.)

In July 1988, MacArthur spoke at the Congress on the Church and the Disabled at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, which featured Roman Catholic and New Evangelical speakers (Moody Monthly, Oct. 1988).

MacArthur participates in the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and speaks at their conferences. The NRB is extremely ecumenical. The 1997 conference featured Seventh-day Adventists, “laughing revival” Pentecostals, the Worldwide Church of God, and an entire slate of New Evangelicals, such as Joseph Stowell, Franklin Graham, Max Lucado, David Jeremiah, and Beverly LaHaye. Episcopalian Elisabeth Elliot was featured at the 1995 NRB conference. Elliot is a kind woman who has suffered for the cause of Christ in the martyrdom of her husband, Jim Elliot, but she is also a New Evangelical Episcopalian. She spoke at the Roman Catholic Franciscan University of Steubenville in 1989 and at the Roman Catholic charismatic conference at Notre Dame in 1998. In her book Taking Flight, Elliot expresses a false position on salvation: “Those who receive Christ are given not an ‘instant kingdom’ but the ‘right to become children of God.’ … It does not say God makes them instant children of God. It says He gives them the right to become” (Taking Flight, p. 12). Contrariwise, Jesus promised, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).

In 1987, MacArthur participated in Jerry Falwell’s Super Conference VIII, which featured E. V. Hill. The late Dr. Hill pastored a church affiliated with the modernistic National Council of Churches in America and he was an ecumenist of the ecumenists. I heard Hill speak at New Orleans ’87 to a mixed crowd of some 40,000 Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and Pentecostals. Fifty percent of the attendees were Roman Catholic, and a Catholic priest brought the final message. Hill said, “And to see all of our Catholic friends here. Wow. We are almost there!” He accepted them as brethren in Christ and did not have one word of warning to them about Rome’s false gospel. This was a pattern in Hill’s ministry. He often joined hands with Roman Catholics. Other examples are the Washington for Jesus Rally in 1980, Graham’s Amsterdam conference in 1983, and the Congress on the Bible II in 1987.

In the various ecumenical forums, MacArthur also puts stamp of approval upon every sort of Contemporary Christian Music and Christian rock music by making his appearance and not speaking out against the worldliness and compromise that is present.

In the late 1990s, MacArthur endorsed charismatic pastor Greg Laurie and appeared in a videotaped promotional for Laurie’s Harvest Crusades. These meetings bring together a hodgepodge of doctrine and practice, including Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Vineyard, Roman Catholic, United Methodist, and Presbyterian Church USA.

In true New Evangelical fashion, MacArthur quotes approvingly from the writings of modernistic neo-orthodox theologians. In the “President’s Message” of the Master’s Current paper in 1995, MacArthur mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer four times in a half-page column. Bonhoeffer was an unbeliever who taught that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God and who did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

MacArthur also sells dangerous books in his church bookstore. When Rick Miesel of the Biblical Discernment Ministries visited the bookstore in 1993, he found many dangerous titles. For sale was Henri Nouwen’s The Wounded Healer. Nouwen is a Roman Catholic mystic and a universalist who believes the gospel is not sufficient in this age, and he offers a mystical psychological/sociological gospel in its place. Also for sale was Chuck Colson’s book The Body, which calls upon evangelicals and Roman Catholics to join forces. Colson, whose wife is a Roman Catholic, said, “The body of Christ, in all its diversity, is created with Baptist feet, charismatic hands, and Catholic ears--all with their eyes on Jesus.”

In 1994 the apostasy with the evangelical world had progressed so far that an Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ETC) document was published and was signed by influential ecumenical evangelicals such as Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, Pat Robertson, and J.I. Packer. Among other things, the document said: “It is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one Christian community [evangelicals] to proselytize active adherents of another Christian community [Catholics].” In other words, it called upon Protestants and Baptists to stop attempting to evangelize Roman Catholics! MacArthur disagreed with ETC and he challenged them privately, but his non-separatist stance was evident when he said that he continued to respect the signers, such as Colson, Bright, and Packer (Charisma, July 1995). Similarly, Dallas Theological Seminary said that while it has reservations about Evangelicals and Catholics Together, it will “maintain fellowship with those evangelicals who did sign the document” (Calvary Contender, June 15, 1995).

How can there be respect for and fellowship with those who undermine and confuse the very gospel itself by associating with the Roman Catholic Church and by calling upon evangelicals to stop trying to evangelize Catholics? It is gross compromise and open disobedience to God’s Word to ignore such a thing and to continue in fellowship with those who are committing such a grievous error. When Peter played the hypocrite and compromised the Word of God, Paul rebuked him. Had Peter continued in the path of compromise, we cannot fathom that Paul would have said that he still respected him and that he would still fellowship with him, regardless of his compromise. To the contrary, Paul taught that if a brother disobeys the Word of God, we are to withdraw ourselves from him (2 Thess. 3:6). THAT is biblical separation. Continuing in fellowship with him is not separation and is not faithfulness to God’s Word.

THE CENTRAL NEW EVANGELICAL ERROR

The central error of New Evangelicalism is not so much in the heresy that is preached but in the truth that is not preached. New Evangelicals preach much truth, but there are areas of doctrine and ministry that they studiously avoid.

This is what we see in John MacArthur. When his evangelical friends Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, J.I. Packer, et al, openly call for fellowship with Rome, what does MacArthur do? He does not join them in that call, it is true, but he also does not separate from and warn of them. When has he gone on his national radio program and warned his listeners in plain words that they should beware of the Chuck Colsons and Bill Brights of evangelicalism? To speak of such things in vague terms is insufficient. Names must be named; the issues must be spelled out clearly.

The average professing Christian doesn’t know the issues and doesn’t know the players, and whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who claim that they know and care for the truth and yet remain silent in the face of the onslaught of apostasy. The deathly silence of MacArthur and others like him allows compromise to spread through the churches by leaving the listeners of the nationally syndicated programs in the dark. All good men have to do to allow evil to succeed is to do nothing.

I am not especially a fan of Martin Luther, but there is no doubt that he was a warrior for what he believed; but when he made the following statement, he said something very important to the issue at hand:

“If I declare with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of God’s Truth except for that one little bit which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ no matter how boldly I may be professing Christ. For the soldier to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that single point.”

That old warrior Charles Spurgeon faced the apostasy and compromise of his day, and he understood that the apostasy was spreading rapidly because believing men were keeping quiet. Spurgeon refused to follow that pattern. His philosophy and practice was based solidly upon the Word of God, as expressed in the following powerful testimony:

“COMPLICITY WITH ERROR WILL TAKE FROM THE BEST OF MEN THE POWER TO ENTER ANY SUCCESSFUL PROTEST AGAINST IT. IT IS OUR SOLEMN CONVICTION THAT WHERE THERE CAN BE NO REAL SPIRITUAL COMMUNION THERE SHOULD BE NO PRETENSE OF FELLOWSHIP. FELLOWSHIP WITH KNOWN AND VITAL ERROR IS PARTICIPATION IN SIN. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my counsel has been ‘Come out from among them.’ I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil. THAT I MIGHT NOT STULTIFY MY TESTIMONY I HAVE CUT MYSELF CLEAR OF THOSE WHO ERR FROM THE FAITH, AND EVEN FROM THOSE WHO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM.”

Every sentence in Spurgeon’s testimony, as stated above, is worth meditating on and following, and those who do so will be found in a different camp than that of John MacArthur.

In conclusion, we call upon Dr. MacArthur to renounce his new evangelical ecumenism and to come out boldly against the apostasy and compromise of the hour.